Talk:SMS Karlsruhe (1916)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * This is awkward: the primary naval component was to comprise the flagship, Moltke, tense doesn't match rest of paragraph. And tell me what type of ship Moltke was. I think you mean "insufficient number of minesweepers" insufficient minesweepers and bad weather This is also awkward: The Admiralstab ordered the naval component to return to the North Sea. perhaps a "then" in there somewhere? Break this in half and combine the first part with the previous sentence and the second part with the following sentence: Karlsruhe sank at 15:50 and was never raised for scrapping. The rights to her wreck were sold in 1962.
 * Should all be fixed.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Add turbines and boilers to infobox. Link boilers. You have the wrong Staff book in the bibliography.
 * All fixed.
 * B. Focused:
 * How can minesweepers repulse a cruiser-destroyer sized attack?
 * The engagement lasted only 15 minutes and the British were hampered by poor visibility. It also seems the British didn't press the attack all that hard - one of the minesweepers was immobilized from a hit, but they didn't finish her off. That said, Staff doesn't explain why the British broke off the engagement.
 * Then say that the British broke off the engagement. It would be good find out why, though. Perhaps Marder or the British official history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. I don't have Marder handy, and the first edition of the official history is the only one viewable in Google Books. It is in the main OSU library - perhaps I'll have some time to check it out this week.
 * Don't bother, I looked and can't even find any mention of the engagement, so Marder's your only hope.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

How is the new Staff book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty good so far. On a side note, my internet's been down since Wednesday, but should hopefully be back up today or tomorrow, so I won't be able to get to anything until then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)